Why Andy Murray failed to become an ATG

abmk

Bionic Poster
Murray has a 99% record in big title matches against anyone outside the Big 3 (sole exception was losing 2016 Cincy final to Cilic which was kind of excusable as he had just won Wimbledon and Olympics back to back and Cilic is a Slam champion after all) so I think that is quite sufficient to speculate otherwise but you have your opinion and I have mine and we are both entitled to it.
Murray would win many Masters level tournaments in any era, that's not in dispute.
But it is ridiculous to bunch slam and masters/YEC finals here together in this since its known Murray's problem was in slam finals.

He was winning Masters in 08-11 without winning any slams.

Out of 11 slam finals:
Murray has played clearly above average in just 4: Wim 12, USO 12, Wim 13, Wim 16
AO 13, AO 15, AO 10, AO 16, RG 16 were below par to average
USO 08 was clearly mediocre
AO 11 was the worst clearly

For a comparision:

Wawrinka in 4 slam finals, played above average in 3 of them: AO 14, RG 15 and USO 16
mediocre in one of them: RG 17
all 4 slam finals were vs big 3 just to be clear

Roddick in 5 slam finals, played clearly above average in 3: USO 03, Wim 04, Wim 09
USO 06 was average (slightly above average tbh)
Wim 05 - slightly below average
4 of his 5 slam finals were vs Federer

Hewitt in 4 slam finals played clearly above average in 3: USO 01, Wim 02, AO 05
mediocre in one of them: USO 04

3 of the 4 slams finals were against Sampras, Federer, peak Safin

Quite clear that all of Wawrinka/Roddick/Hewitt did significantly better in their slam finals vs quality competition (by name) than Murray did on an average.

The excuse of Murray having to face Big3 in slams finals doesn't cut it with only 4 of 11 performances being above average. (incl 1 vs Raonic)
 

RS

Legend
ridiculous to bunch slam and masters/YEC finals here together in this since its known Murray's problem was in slam finals.

He was winning Masters in 08-11 without winning any slams.

Out of 11 slam finals:
Murray has played clearly above average in just 4: Wim 12, USO 12, Wim 13, Wim 16
AO 13, AO 15, AO 10, AO 16, RG 16 were below par to average
USO 08 was clearly mediocre
AO 11 was the worst clearly

For a comparision:

Wawrinka in 4 slam finals, played above average in 3 of them: AO 14, RG 15 and USO 16
mediocre in one of them: RG 17
all 4 slam finals were vs big 3 just to be clear

Roddick in 5 slam finals, played clearly above average in 3: USO 03, Wim 04, Wim 09
USO 06 was average (slightly above average tbh)
Wim 05 - slightly below average
4 of his 5 slam finals were vs Federer

Hewitt in 4 slam finals played clearly above average in 3: USO 01, Wim 02, AO 05
mediocre in one of them: USO 04

3 of the 4 slams finals were against Sampras, Federer, peak Safin

Quite clear that all of Wawrinka/Roddick/Hewitt did significantly better in their slam finals vs quality competition than Murray did on an average.

The excuse of Murray having to face Big3 in slams finals doesn't cut it with only 4 of 11 performances being above average. (incl 1 vs Raonic)
I would say Murray was good or better than that in 6/11 slam finals - Wim 12 , USO 12 , AO 13 , Wim 13 , AO 15 , Wim 16

AO 10/16 was like decent and just about decent and RG 2016 average (thanks to the first set) then USO 08 and AO 11 below par. Should have done better in some of them but better than you make it look.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Murray would win many Masters level tournaments in any era, that's not in dispute.
But it is ridiculous to bunch slam and masters/YEC finals here together in this since its known Murray's problem was in slam finals.

He was winning Masters in 08-11 without winning any slams.

Out of 11 slam finals:
Murray has played clearly above average in just 4: Wim 12, USO 12, Wim 13, Wim 16
AO 13, AO 15, AO 10, AO 16, RG 16 were below par to average
USO 08 was clearly mediocre
AO 11 was the worst clearly

For a comparision:

Wawrinka in 4 slam finals, played above average in 3 of them: AO 14, RG 15 and USO 16
mediocre in one of them: RG 17
all 4 slam finals were vs big 3 just to be clear

Roddick in 5 slam finals, played clearly above average in 3: USO 03, Wim 04, Wim 09
USO 06 was average (slightly above average tbh)
Wim 05 - slightly below average
4 of his 5 slam finals were vs Federer

Hewitt in 4 slam finals played clearly above average in 3: USO 01, Wim 02, AO 05
mediocre in one of them: USO 04

3 of the 4 slams finals were against Sampras, Federer, peak Safin

Quite clear that all of Wawrinka/Roddick/Hewitt did significantly better in their slam finals vs quality competition (by name) than Murray did on an average.

The excuse of Murray having to face Big3 in slams finals doesn't cut it with only 4 of 11 performances being above average. (incl 1 vs Raonic)
AO 2013 was above average, not below.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I would say Murray was good or better than that in 6/11 slam finals - Wim 12 , USO 12 , AO 13 , Wim 13 , AO 15 , Wim 16

AO 10/16 was like decent and just about decent and RG 2016 average (thanks to the first set) then USO 08 and AO 11 below par. Should have done better in some of them but better than you make it look.
AO 2013 was above average, not below.
AO 13/15 maybe or at best a little above average, but not much above.
Not something to be classed along with the other 4 IMO
: Wim 12, USO 12, Wim 13 and Wim 16.
 

RS

Legend
AO 13/15 maybe or at best a little above average, but not much above.
Not something to be classed along with the other 4 IMO
: Wim 12, USO 12, Wim 13 and Wim 16.
AO 13/15 most likely in the good range. Not super great but good.

Just talking from a Murray POV.
 
Last edited:

big ted

Hall of Fame
from what i remember he visibly imploded in so many of the finals esp against djokovic
if he were mentally tougher it could have made all the difference
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
The excuse of Murray having to face Big3 in slams finals doesn't cut it with only 4 of 11 performances being above average. (incl 1 vs Raonic)
You've just contradicted your own argument. Every single one of his Slams with one exception was against a Big 3 player. It is indisputable that they are better players than he is. We all know what happened when he played his only Slam final against a non-Big 3 player. I contend, quite reasonably in my view, that without facing a Big 3 player he would do better in Slam finals than his present record indicates.
 

ElisRF

Professional
You've just contradicted your own argument. Every single one of his Slams with one exception was against a Big 3 player. It is indisputable that they are better players than he is. We all know what happened when he played his only Slam final against a non-Big 3 player. I contend, quite reasonably in my view, that without facing a Big 3 player he would do better in Slam finals than his present record indicates.
Problem is people can’t keep taking away the big 3. And others eras had different challenges as well.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
You've just contradicted your own argument. Every single one of his Slams with one exception was against a Big 3 player. It is indisputable that they are better players than he is. We all know what happened when he played his only Slam final against a non-Big 3 player. I contend, quite reasonably in my view, that without facing a Big 3 player he would do better in Slam finals than his present record indicates.
If you want to remove the Big 3 from Murray, you'll have to do the same with the main threats from other eras as well.

And besides, his only non-Big 3 slam final was against Raonic. Just because he beat him, doesn't mean he'd beat Becker or Edberg in that final, who are tiers above the Canadian. Not all non-Big 3 are created equal.
 

Sudacafan

Talk Tennis Guru
If you want to remove the Big 3 from Murray, you'll have to do the same with the main threats from other eras as well.

And besides, his only non-Big 3 slam final was against Raonic. Just because he beat him, doesn't mean he'd beat Becker or Edberg in that final, who are tiers above the Canadian. Not all non-Big 3 are created equal.
Big 3 is a coherent concept. Big four unluckily is not.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
If you want to remove the Big 3 from Murray, you'll have to do the same with the main threats from other eras as well.

And besides, his only non-Big 3 slam final was against Raonic. Just because he beat him, doesn't mean he'd beat Becker or Edberg in that final, who are tiers above the Canadian. Not all non-Big 3 are created equal.
My only question to you is this: If he can beat one of the 3 best players in the history of tennis in 2 Slam finals and in other big title matches, why are you so sure he couldn't have done the same or even better against ATGs from another era who are lesser players than the ones he faced in this era?
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Big 3 is a coherent concept. Big four unluckily is not.
As explained many times, it is the set of all current players who have won:

a) multiple Slams
b) double digit Masters titles
c) been ranked world #1

It is not mutually exclusive with the equally valid Big 3 grouping and you may choose to place no value in that but you cannot argue that it is incoherent.
 

Sudacafan

Talk Tennis Guru
As explained many times, it is the set of all current players who have won:

a) multiple Slams
b) double digit Masters titles
c) been ranked world #1

It is not mutually exclusive with the equally valid Big 3 grouping and you may choose to place no value in that but you cannot argue that it is incoherent.
Sorry. Will not do this again.
 

Sudacafan

Talk Tennis Guru
As explained many times, it is the set of all current players who have won:

a) multiple Slams
b) double digit Masters titles
c) been ranked world #1

It is not mutually exclusive with the equally valid Big 3 grouping and you may choose to place no value in that but you cannot argue that it is incoherent.
Sorry for the lot of work you may be having with this insensitive thread.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You've just contradicted your own argument. Every single one of his Slams with one exception was against a Big 3 player. It is indisputable that they are better players than he is. We all know what happened when he played his only Slam final against a non-Big 3 player. I contend, quite reasonably in my view, that without facing a Big 3 player he would do better in Slam finals than his present record indicates.
My post was showing that Wawrinka, Roddick and Hewitt performed clearly better vs quality competition (by name) in slams finals (put up better performances) than Murray. Quote the whole thing to give the full context and stop quoting only part to distort - that's just utterly dishonest. Full post quoted below.

A sample size of 1 vs a hugely inferior player in Raonic doesn't mean as much as you think it does. Just because he beat Raonic in Wim final, doesn't mean he'd beat Edberg, Becker, Mac etc.

Murray would lose quite a few of those slam finals to very good players or even just good players in very good form, not just Fed/Djokovic.
Example: He lost to Djoko in 4 AO finals. Those versions of Murray loses to in-form Becker, Courier, Sampras etc. as well. 1 version of Murray who showed up vs Djokovic at AO who would have a decent chance was the semi at AO 12.


Murray would win many Masters level tournaments in any era, that's not in dispute.
But it is ridiculous to bunch slam and masters/YEC finals here together in this since its known Murray's problem was in slam finals.

He was winning Masters in 08-11 without winning any slams.

Out of 11 slam finals:
Murray has played clearly above average in just 4: Wim 12, USO 12, Wim 13, Wim 16
AO 13, AO 15, AO 10, AO 16, RG 16 were below par to average
USO 08 was clearly mediocre
AO 11 was the worst clearly

For a comparision:

Wawrinka in 4 slam finals, played above average in 3 of them: AO 14, RG 15 and USO 16
mediocre in one of them: RG 17
all 4 slam finals were vs big 3 just to be clear

Roddick in 5 slam finals, played clearly above average in 3: USO 03, Wim 04, Wim 09
USO 06 was average (slightly above average tbh)
Wim 05 - slightly below average
4 of his 5 slam finals were vs Federer

Hewitt in 4 slam finals played clearly above average in 3: USO 01, Wim 02, AO 05
mediocre in one of them: USO 04

3 of the 4 slams finals were against Sampras, Federer, peak Safin

Quite clear that all of Wawrinka/Roddick/Hewitt did significantly better in their slam finals vs quality competition (by name) than Murray did on an average.

The excuse of Murray having to face Big3 in slams finals doesn't cut it with only 4 of 11 performances being above average. (incl 1 vs Raonic)
 
Last edited:

NedStark

Rookie
True.

My point was that people always say that without the Big 3, he'd be close to a 10 time slam winner. But if you remove the Big 3, it's the weakest era of all time with his overall opponents not even being Hewitt/Roddick level and his main rival being Stan.

And besides, if we play this game with him, we'd have to play this game with every other player or ATG too. Let's eliminate the top guy/guys from their eras and they'd also be more accomplished.

Case in point: Becker/Edberg. People want to argue that without the Big 3, Murray would easily be on their level, but those 2 without each other as well as other ATGs would be 10-11 slam winners on the level of Borg.
Without Edberg, Becker would have been Borg-tier on grass.

However, without Becker, Edberg would have only won one more Slam.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
My only question to you is this: If he can beat one of the 3 best players in the history of tennis in 2 Slam finals and in other big title matches, why are you so sure he couldn't have done the same or even better against ATGs from another era who are lesser players than the ones he faced in this era?
Beating Djokovic in two of his worst slam finals is hardly a stirring mark of quality sorry.
 

RS

Legend
Time travel matchups.

1. Davydenko RG 07 vs Djokovic RG 14
2. Tsonga AO 08 SF vs Dasco AO 09 SF
3. Federer AO 06 vs Wawrinka AO 13
4. Wawrinka AO 14 vs Nadal AO 17
5. Hewitt Wim 05 vs Murray Wim 15
6. Roddick Wim 04 vs Federer Wim 17
7. Djokovic RG 16 final vs Nadal RG 18 final
8. Roddick USO 06 final vs Djokovic USO 12 final
9. Nadal AO 09 final vs Federer AO 10 final
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
My only question to you is this: If he can beat one of the 3 best players in the history of tennis in 2 Slam finals and in other big title matches, why are you so sure he couldn't have done the same or even better against ATGs from another era who are lesser players than the ones he faced in this era?
I see him doing the same, but I don't see him winning more than 4-5 slams. Those guys weren't jokes. At their best they were better than Murray, IMO.

And besides, we should make this argument for Stan as well and I don't think anyone believes he'd be an ATG in another era.
 

InsideOut900

Hall of Fame
Time travel matchups.

1. Davydenko RG 07 vs Djokovic RG 14 (bad match-up and Davydenko choking lmao)
2. Tsonga AO 08 SF vs Dasco AO 09 SF (Verdasco's return of serve wasn't good enough to deal with Stronga, 4 tight or 5 sets)
3. Federer AO 06 vs Wawrinka AO 13 (simply by match-up, but Stan played better overall, so probably 5 sets for Fed)
4. Wawrinka AO 14 vs Nadal AO 17 (5 setter)
5. Hewitt Wim 05 vs Murray Wim 15 (Murray served much better, Hewitt wins off the ground, it's anyone's game)
6. Roddick Wim 04 vs Federer Wim 17 (Roddick, tight, but convincing win in 4 sets)
7. Djokovic RG 16 final vs Nadal RG 18 final (hard to say, Nadal by name, but Djoko was on a mission that day)
8. Roddick USO 06 final vs Djokovic USO 12 final (Djoko in 4 if there is no wind, idk otherwise)
9. Nadal AO 09 final vs Federer AO 10 final ( not sure if Fed was any better in 2010 final, better serve for sure, but looked lesser off the ground)
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
My post was showing that Wawrinka, Roddick and Hewitt performed clearly better vs quality competition (by name) in slams finals (put up better performances) than Murray. Quote the whole thing to give the full context and stop quoting only part to distort - that's just utterly dishonest. Full post quoted below.

A sample size of 1 vs a hugely inferior player in Raonic doesn't mean as much as you think it does. Just because he beat Raonic in Wim final, doesn't mean he'd beat Edberg, Becker, Mac etc.

Murray would lose quite a few of those slam finals to very good players or even just good players in very good form, not just Fed/Djokovic.
Example: He lost to Djoko in 4 AO finals. Those versions of Murray loses to in-form Becker, Courier, Sampras etc. as well. 1 version of Murray who showed up vs Djokovic at AO who would have a decent chance was the semi at AO 12.
You state quite confidently that he would lose to Becker and Courier in the same way he lost to Djokovic. I totally disagree but, as we know, the difference is that you don't like and therefore don't rate Murray as a top player. Consequently we are never going to agree about him and we will just have to leave it at that.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
You state quite confidently that he would lose to Becker and Courier in the same way he lost to Djokovic. I totally disagree but, as we know, the difference is that you don't like and therefore don't rate Murray as a top player. Consequently we are never going to agree about him and we will just have to leave it at that.
I like Murray and I don't think he's on the level of Becker/Edberg. One doesn't have to be a Murray hater to agree with that statement.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Beating Djokovic in two of his worst slam finals is hardly a stirring mark of quality sorry.
It should come as no surprise to you that I cannot in any way treat this remark with any trace of respect and nor should it be. With regards to Murray you are exactly the same as the poster I just replied to and for precisely the same reasons but, of course, we know this already only too well.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I like Murray and I don't think he's on the level of Becker/Edberg. One doesn't have to be a Murray hater to agree with that statement.
You may like him personally but I don't think you respect his game and abilities enough. That's the big difference between us.
 

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
I like Murray and I don't think he's on the level of Becker/Edberg. One doesn't have to be a Murray hater to agree with that statement.
Of course, they do.



OK, jk, I can't really back that up when I also consider them both above our Muzziah. That doesn't mean that I don't consider Murray ATG though, because he clearly is. size 6 fits all eh? Yeah, ''I got a size extra large fat ass and that don't fit me playa.''
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
You may like him personally but I don't think you respect his game and abilities enough. That's the big difference between us.
And I think you respect the games of Becker and Edberg far too little to place Murray on the same pedestal... or higher. Works both ways. He's a great player, but he's pretty clearly a notch below the 6 and 7-Slam winners in my view. Where he beats them is not peak level but consistency, but I personally don't think that's enough.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I see him doing the same, but I don't see him winning more than 4-5 slams. Those guys weren't jokes. At their best they were better than Murray, IMO.

And besides, we should make this argument for Stan as well and I don't think anyone believes he'd be an ATG in another era.
What, not even if he had beaten Becker and Edberg the way he did Nadal and Djokovic? ;)
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
And I think you respect the games of Becker and Edberg far too little to place Murray on the same pedestal. Works both ways. He's a great player, but he's pretty clearly a notch below the 6 and 7-Slam winners in my view. Where he beats them is not peak level but consistency, but I personally don't think that's enough.
It's not the same at all. I respect Becker and Edberg enormously but I think Murray could have beaten them just as I think they could have beaten Murray. I respect them all, that's the big difference between us.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
It should come as no surprise to you that I cannot in any way treat this remark with any trace of respect and nor should it be. With regards to Murray you are exactly the same as the poster I just replied to and for precisely the same reasons but, of course, we know this already only too well.
Sorry I forgot Judy Murray pays your mortage so you'll be a talking head on here :-D
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
It's not the same at all. I respect Becker and Edberg enormously but I think Murray could have beaten them just as I think they could have beaten Murray. I respect them all, that's the big difference between us.
I mean, certainly Murray would bag some wins against them just like he did against Nadal and Djokovic. But I just don't think he'd be winning much against their very best versions just as he didn't win against the very best versions Federer and Djokovic (Nadal too, but they didn't face as often). His floor is higher but his ceiling is lower, I believe. But to each their own, I guess.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I mean, certainly Murray would bag some wins against them just like he did against Nadal and Djokovic. But I just don't think he'd be winning much against their very best versions just as he didn't win against the very best versions Federer and Djokovic (Nadal too, but they didn't face as often). His floor is higher but his ceiling is lower, I believe. But to each their own, I guess.
Well, who knows? He may have faced their not very best versions just as some people on here like to think he never faced the very best versions of the Big 3. ;)
 

Imperator

Hall of Fame
Because it’s not some kind of divine status, either they have it at their core or they don’t. Guys like Safin or Kyrgios have it but never worked hard enough to make the most of it. Murray worked hard but simply didn’t have it.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I mean, certainly Murray would bag some wins against them just like he did against Nadal and Djokovic. But I just don't think he'd be winning much against their very best versions just as he didn't win against the very best versions Federer and Djokovic (Nadal too, but they didn't face as often). His floor is higher but his ceiling is lower, I believe. But to each their own, I guess.
It's a combination of factors such as tour conditions breeding more consistency, a deeper and more dangerous second tier, worse rackets etc...relatively speaking Murray may capitalise more often in finals but I also think inherently he's going to be more inconsistent and less likely to make finals in earlier era's as well. Plus often times in those era's despite the slam winners being of relatively less stature historically than the Big 3 they were often still playing damn fine tennis, so much so that I find it unlikely that Murray playing his customary one or two decent sets in a slam final is going to cut it. Murray gets way too much credit for bending over to the Big 3, he has five wins in 20 matches and most of those losses weren't even remotely close...
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Because it’s not some kind of divine status, either they have it at their core or they don’t. Guys like Safin or Kyrgios have it but never worked hard enough to make the most of it. Murray worked hard but simply didn’t have it.
Are you seriously trying to tell us that the likes of Kyrgios "has it" and Murray doesn't or didn't??? I've had to read some disrespectful s**t about him on here but I think this one takes the biscuit!!! :D:D:D

Can't wait to hear Nick's reaction to this one!!! :p
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
It's a combination of factors such as tour conditions breeding more consistency, a deeper and more dangerous second tier, worse rackets etc...relatively speaking Murray may capitalise more often in finals but I also think inherently he's going to be more inconsistent and less likely to make finals in earlier era's as well. Plus often times in those era's despite the slam winners being of relatively less stature historically than the Big 3 they were often still playing damn fine tennis, so much so that I find it unlikely that Murray playing his customary one or two decent sets in a slam final is going to cut it. Murray gets way too much credit for bending over to the Big 3, he has five wins in 20 matches and most of those losses weren't even remotely close...
Murray's consistency is still exceptional no matter which way you put it, though. It would take a hit in that era, sure, but it'd still be one of his defining traits.

I'm just saying he'd be the kind of guy to snag wins against those types of Slam winners whenever they weren't in stellar form just like he did against Djokovic at USO 2012 and Wimby 2013. And the kind of level he brought to Wimby 2012 and AO 2013 would be good enough to rack up similar wins.
 

Imperator

Hall of Fame
Are you seriously trying to tell us that the likes of Kyrgios "has it" and Murray doesn't or didn't??? :D:D:D

Can;t wait to hear Nick's reaction to that one!!! :p
I’m saying Kyrgios had the potential to be an ATG but Murray didn’t.

Kyrgios reads us ? Wouldn’t surprise me, it’s not like he was busy doing anything else.
 
Top